Re: RFC: Starting a stable kernel series off the 2.6 kernel

Bill Davidsen
2005-12-09T16:38:45Z

Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Bill Davidsen wrote:
>
>> I do think the old model was better; by holding down major changes for
>> six months or so after a new even release came out, people had a
>> chance to polich the stable release, and developers had time to
>> recharge their batteries so to speak, and to sit and think about what
>> they wanted to do, without feeling the pressure to write code and
>> submit it right away. Knowing that there's no place to send code for
>> six months is a great aid to generating GOOD code.
>
>
> It never worked that way, which is why the model changed.
>
> Like it or not, developers would only focus on one release. In the old
> model, unstable things would get shoved into the stable kernel, because
> people didn't want to wait six months. And for the unstable kernel, it
> would often be so horribly broken that even developers couldn't use it
> for development (think 2.5.x IDE).

I was actually thinking of Rusty's module code... I do every time I have
to build an initrd file by hand "Although the syntax is similar to the
older /etc/modules.conf, there are many features missing."

--
-bill davidsen (davidsen@tmr.com)
"The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the
last possible moment - but no longer" -me